Head vs Atomic

[Max_501]

In another thread I was asked to compare the SuperShape to the Metron B5. I waited a while to get enough days back to back to do a fair comparison.

My quiver:

Head SuperShape 170cm
Head iSL Chip 160cm
Atomic SL9 170cm
Atomic Metron B5 162cm

All of those ski well in hard snow but I tend to use the Metrons for offpiste days and one of the others for hard snow carving. I prefer the iSL for hyper carving (meaning I'm going to spend my day going for the biggest angles I can get). Its a terrific ski and probably my favorite for hard snow (it also works surprisingly well in crud, slush, and bumps). The SL9 is a nice ski with great edgehold and a reasonably soft flex. It hooks up and bends easily so its a great tool for working on reducing your turn radius via bending the ski. The SuperShape hooks up easily but its stiffer than the SL9 so it requires a bit more work for tighter turns. The SuperShape is 66mm under the foot so its a bit better than the SL9 in ungroomed snow.

The SuperShape and Metron B5 have a different focus in my quiver. The Metron would be my choice for a day I plan on being offpiste (I think of it as my lightning fast bulldozer). I'd take the SuperShape out if I know I'd be primarily on the groomed runs but planning on some offpiste thrown in. The Metron is 76mm under foot with 131mm at the tip. Its got ALOT of surface area so it handles deeps snow, crud, slush, and corn in a smoother fashion than the SuperShape (only 66mm under foot). I'm not saying you can't ski the SuperShape in those conditions (because you can), just that the Metron handles offpiste snow better. The SuperShape feels closer to the SL9 (64mm under foot) than to the Metron B5.

For the spring skiing I've been doing I like the iSL the best if morning temps are below 30. If its between 30-40 I go for the SuperShape or the SL9 depending on which is waxed. If its 40+ then I grab the Metrons (these skis just love spring corn).

For typical PNW winter skiing I'd probably grab the Metrons most of the time unless I was planning on focusing on drills or carving in which case I'd grab one of the others with no specific preference (although I'm leaning towards the iSL as my current favorite for carving).

All of those skis work very well with PMTS.

[patprof]

Great reviews Max!

[ChuckT]

Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts on these skis. (And for many excellent posts you have contributed in this forum.)

Chuck

[anha]

New poster adding my 2 cents.

I normally ski a pair of 165cm Atomic SX9 Supercross. Last week at the Hintertux, Harald started talking about how my particular skis were affecting my skiing so I decided it was time to try a pair of 165cm Supershapes for a day. On hard and even surfaces, I did not notice a big difference. The main thing I noticed was that the Supershapes were more forgiving to slight mistakes, such as being in the back seat.

On more uneven surfaces, the difference was more noticable. The supershapes were more stable and absorbing. On slush, it was night and day for me. I always used to hate skiing the last slope towards the restaurant at 2600m when heading down for lunch or the end of the day. My legs would be tired and there was quite a bit of slush. On the atomics I could get down ok but it was not fun. On the supershapes, I actually had fun skiing slush, something that never has happened before. They just sliced through that stuff like a hot knife through butter.

--
Anders H

[tommy]

I normally ski a pair of 165cm Atomic SX9 Supercross.

actually, you normally ski a pair of 160 cm Atomix SX9 Supercross....! What would you do if I wasn't around taking care of you, and your skis...?!

[Max_501]

On more uneven surfaces, the difference was more noticable. The supershapes were more stable and absorbing. On slush, it was night and day for me. I always used to hate skiing the last slope towards the restaurant at 2600m when heading down for lunch or the end of the day. My legs would be tired and there was quite a bit of slush. On the atomics I could get down ok but it was not fun. On the supershapes, I actually had fun skiing slush, something that never has happened before. They just sliced through that stuff like a hot knife through butter.

Excellent observation. When a ski has more surface area it does a better job of handling things like slush, crud, and powder. The SuperShape has a wide tip and tail and is 65 or 66 under the foot so its pretty good as an all around ski. If you like the way the SuperShape handles slush you might want to demo the Metron M11 or Metron B5. They are even better at slush and cruddy snow. The tough decision is in selecting one ski over the other if you are only going to own one pair. In that case you need to figure out where you are going to be spending most of your time. If you are more than 50% on the groomed I'd go with the SuperShape. If you are more than 50% off piste I'd go with the Metron. But that's just my opinion, I'm sure there are others that would take the SuperShape over the Metron in all conditions.

BTW, the SX9 is a nice ski which has a shape more in line with the XRC 1200 which is quite a bit different than the SuperShape.

[anha]

I normally ski a pair of 165cm Atomic SX9 Supercross.

actually, you normally ski a pair of 160 cm Atomix SX9 Supercross....! What would you do if I wasn't around taking care of you, and your skis...?!

Speaking of that, I need to head over to you and get them waxed for storage .

I am pretty much decided on the Supershapes. I might keep the Atomics as backup or sell/give them away.